the rebel General Johnston (under whose command he was serving at the time), it was agreed that all officers and men should be permitted toreturn totheir homes, not ot be disturbed by the U. S. authorities so long as they observed their bligations and the laws in force where they resided.

2. That he should not be held to trial or in custody bbecuase att he time of his arrest he was in the enjoyment of his liberty,a nd was promised by Captain Noyes, of Major- General Wilson's staff, that he should not be held as a prisoner, but that afte giving such verbal inforamtion toGenral Wilson as he was able he should bhave a safe- conduct to his home, which promise was violated.

3. That the commission had no jurisdiction to try him for the offenses charged; also that he had been on the 21st of August, 1865, arraigned and put on trial before the same tribunal on the same cahrges,a nd could not be tried or put to answer a second time therfor. Also that the cahrges and specifications were too vague and indenfinite,a nddid not make out an offense punishable byt he laws of war.

All these pleas were discussed at length on both sides, and were, after deliberation, properly overruled by the ommission. A plea of not guilty toboth cahrges and specifications therto was then made by the prisoner. The investigation of the matters alleged agaisnt the prisoner then commenced and contineud untilt he 21st day of october, during which time 148 witnessed ofr the prosecution and defense were examined,a dn a large amount of documentary evidence, found in the official papaers captured at Andersonville and among the rebel archives at Richmond, was introduced one of the counsel for the defense then asked for an adjournment for two weeks at least to enable him to prepare an argument. The commission first decided to adjourn ten days, and upon his further petition, twelve days, for thsipurpose. He, however, declared that it was insufficient time,a nd therupon announced that he would submit the sase without remark. After an adjounment of four days an elaborate statement of the prisoner was submitted, which was prepared by him with the aid of an able assistant (the chief reporter of the trial, who shows himself familiar with all the material fats), which goes over the whole case in explanation of certian acts averred, and in denial of the proof or truth of allthe others. The closing addess of the judge- advocate immedaitely followed,a dn thereafter thecourt, it appears, having maturely considered the evidence adduced, found theaccused, Henry Wirz, as follows:*

It is not necessary, for the purpsoe of this review, to go into an elaborate discussion of the questions involved in the findings onthe first charge. From the documnent of the proceedings, containing more than 5,000 pages, presenting a mass of evidence bearing upon these questions, no brief summary can be made which would do justice to the subject. The argument of the judge- advocate sets forth an able and exhaustive examination of the material legal points raised and proof established byt hetrial, and forms a part of the record. It may be entered into the delibbeeratins of the court, and as particularly applicable to this branch of the case, reference is respectfully invited to pages 4838 to 5148. The opinion is expressed that the consiracy, as described in the findings above recited, was clearly made out, and that the concousions arrived attby the court could not, in the light of the evidence this record contains, have been avoided. Language fails in

---------------

*For finding and sentence (here omitted) see General Court- Martial Orders, Numbers 607, p. 784.

---------------